Talk:1924 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1

Untitled
So the Irish Nationalists held on to one seat, despite receiving not a single vote? Ahem... Xyzzyva 08:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Uncontested Seat?


 * Absolutely. Thomas Power O'Connor won Liverpool Scotland. Warofdreams talk 10:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Zinoviev Letter
It is a bit daft to attribute so much importance to the Zinoviev letter. To do so goes against all virtually all historical knowledge today. I think we should change this, but being a wikipedia newbie am posting my thoughts here first. Certainly it's a very misleading statement and the kind of thing that would lose most students marks in an exam answer.

Some key points:

1. The Labour vote increased. That they did not win said more about the Conservative revival of fortunes and the decline of the Liberal party than it did about any recoil against the Labour Party. In fact 1924 saw the solidification of Lab. support in key geographical areas of Labour support.

2. Baldwin tended to play DOWN the Zinoviev letter, which formed only one part of a larger 'red scare' during the election. The Campbell case and the Russian treaty (which aren't even mentioned in this article) was easily just as damaging to Labour.

3. The idea of 'red scare' appealed to those who were never going to vote Labour anyway rather than those who would otherwise have supported the party. In a partisan atmosphere, its impact was limited, because for those who opposed Labour it was seen to reinforce what they 'knew' anyway and for those who supported Labour its origins were questioned.

4. The Conservative upturn in votes owed a great deal to (a) the adoption of the policies set out in Looking Ahead (1924) and (b) the abandonment of protection. The latter was particularly important because it inhibited the Conservative vote on in many key constituencies, and produced a series of split elections. 1924 was therefore a 'return to normal' in many respects for the party.

5. General elections tend not to be decided by such short-term contingencies such as this, and this is especially true if you look at the SCALE of Conservative victory. It was their biggest ever independent majority, another important fact this article omits.

Well I thought I'd post that here before I consider redrafting the article, as I'm new here. BUt as you can see there's plenty of room for improvement.

Nick Lee 14:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that it is too brief and thus open to misinterpretation. Nick Lee makes some valued points which should be accomodated with the exception of the following; 3. This was a very fluid period in party allegiances with three political parties challenging. The partisan voter was a very small percentage of the electorate. It is because of this that the 'red scare' issues played such a key part in that the issues polarised opinion between the Conservatives and Labour. The 'red scare' issues moved previous Liberal voters and many undecideds towards the Conservatives. The 'red scare' issues and the decision by the Conservatives to drop Protection policies best explains the poor Liberal poll. (Graemp 11:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

seats
According to the article, there were 616 seats. But the results box only has 615 MPs in total. Who is missing?--109.149.33.183 (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There were only 615, so nobody is missing. I've corrected the article. Warofdreams talk 09:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on United Kingdom general election, 1924. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040212181627/http://labour-party.org.uk:80/manifestos/1924/1924-labour-manifesto.shtml to http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1924/1924-labour-manifesto.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Gains and losses
Eagle-eyed readers will see that the number of gains I recently added here in the Results table adds to 206 while the number of losses adds to 205.

The gains and losses I took from the 1923 election (as is modern practice), so excluding mid-term gains by by-elections or defections. At this distance it would be hard, even with F. W. S. Craig to work it out from the dissolution of this Parliament to the next, including by-elections and defections. I thought a comparison from 1923 to 1924, using Craig’s own lists, would be more useful than blank spaces.

On this basis, as George Maitland Lloyd Davies had won the University of Wales as a Christian Pacifist in 1923, but had defected to Labour before the 1924 election. By October 1924 there were no Christian Pacifist candidates and, short of a line in the results table putting them in as no votes – no seats – no gains – one loss, they are absent.

There was a Christian Pacifist candidate at Kettering in 1945, but no indication this candidate had anything to do with G. M. L. Davies. No such candidate has stood under this label since.

For completeness; G. M. L. Davies stood in 1924 and his fate was:

Uncantabrigian (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)